Excerpt: ... and 54 (Law and Motion) of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.Plaintiff's counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Department 53's correct address, Local Rule 1.06, and the Court's tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff's counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or r...

Excerpt: ...loyment law action, self‐represented Plaintiff Juliet Valderrama (“Plaintiff”) alleges causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for physical disability discrimination, physical disability harassment, failure to accommodate disabilities, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation. Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action for violation of her rights under the California Family Rights Act (“C...

Excerpt: ...eatedly sought to depose Mr. Magby, starting in October 2021, when Ms. Bennett served Mr. Magby with a Notice of Deposition, designating a deposition date of November 8, 2021. On the day of deposition, Mr. Magby's counsel stated that he was unaware of the deposition and that Mr. Magby would not appear. Ms. Bennett promptly served a First Amended Notice of Deposition, setting a new deposition date of November 29, 2021. Again, neither Mr. Magby nor...

Excerpt: ...06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure. If Defendants' counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendants' counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today's tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06 (B). Defendants' motion for...

Excerpt: ...14. The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel for moving party is directed to contact counsel for opposing party and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure. If counsel for moving party is unable to contact counsel for opposing party prior to hearing, counsel for moving party shall be available at the hearing, in person or by...

Excerpt: ...reet, Sacramento, California 95814. Ford's counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Department 53's correct address, Local Rule 1.06, and the Court's tentative ruling procedure. If Ford's counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Ford's counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice...

Excerpt: .... This is a consolidated action. On February 22, 2021, Tyler Davis (“Davis”) filed the Davis Dissolution Action in which he seeks dissolution of TopDevz, LLC (“TopDevz”) as well as damages and injunctive relief for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and misappropriation. After Davis filed his complaint in the Davis Dissolution Action, Ashkan Rajaee (“Rajaee”) served a demand for arbitration. In response, Davis filed an answer to Rajaee's...

Excerpt: ... this Motion for Protective Order was continued from June 9, 2022, to July 6, 2022, to allow parties the opportunity to further meet and confer. (ROA 87.) It was unclear at that time whether the parties made a reasonable and good faith effort to informally resolve their disputes. (Ibid.) Parties were ordered to resume the meet and confer process, by no later than June 17, 2022, and to report to the Court the status of their continued meet and con...

Excerpt: ...red the intersection on a red light, causing a T‐bone collision with Plaintiffs' vehicle. Plaintiffs allege that: “Before the subject incident, Defendant JAMIE BROWN HARRISON consumed substantial amounts of alcohol and controlled substances to the point of intoxication and impairment. 8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants JAMIE BROWN HARRISON and DOES 1 through 10 had been drinking alcohol and had notice that they were driving under th...

Excerpt: ... Plaintiff alleges that she is a user of Defendants' healthcare insurance plan and seeks medical treatment at Defendants' facilities. (SAC, ¶ 6.) On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff was in an accident resulting in injury and went to Defendants' Emergency Department. “Plaintiff was in shock, traumatized, frightened and scared. Plaintiff was immobile, was placed in wheelchair by Defendant's personnel, and was in a state of total dependency on Defend...

Excerpt: ... Defendant Windsor Sacramento Estates, LLC dba Windsor Care Center of Sacramento's (“Windsor Sacramento”) joinder to this motion for reconsideration is granted. On May 17, 2022, the Court denied defendant Windsor Sacramento's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay Superior Court Action to which the Windsor Corporate Defendants joined. The Court explained it would not consider the Advanced Directive submitted by Windsor Sacramento for...

Excerpt: ... P‐B486, a decision of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, is granted. Plaintiff State of California, Employment Development Department's (“Plaintiff” or “EDD”) request for judicial notice of various orders, tentative rulings, and judgments in Brooks v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 2020‐80003321, and California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Decision ...

Excerpt: ...ls to state a claim because it is barred by Civil Code § 3482. (Notice at 1.) I. Overview This is a case for inverse condemnation and nuisance against the District. Plaintiffs are residents of Maita Circle, in East Tahoe Park, Sacramento. (FAC ¶¶ 3, 8‐36.) In April 2018, the District served public notice concerning relocation of its Transportation Center (the “Center”), which the District uses to “house office space for the transportat...

Excerpt: ...3 court days prior to the hearing. Under CCP § 1005(b), “[a]ll papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days … before the hearing.” The Court declines to consider Plaintiff's untimely opposition and considers the demurrer unopposed and as a concession on the merits. I. Overview This case arises from what appears to be a home loan modification agreement that Plaint...

Excerpt: ...“Defendants”) is UNOPPOSED and tentatively GRANTED pending the final fairness hearing to be held on this date. (Code Civ. Proc. § 382; Cal. R. Ct. 3.769.) Regardless of its disposition of the motion herein, the Court must still hold a hearing on the motion as it may involve the receipt of evidence or an appearance by a Class Member. Although the Court anticipates that no party will request oral argument, and while no Class Member indicated a...

Excerpt: ...sion of CCP § 583.420. (Notice at 1.) Specifically, Defendant maintains Plaintiffs' action should be dismissed because the action has not been brought to trial within three years after being commenced against Defendant. (CCP § 583.420(a)(2) (A).) I. Overview This case arises out of Plaintiffs' employment with Defendant. Plaintiffs allege claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for age/disability discrimination, ...

Excerpt: ... is plead in the form of a common count. (Complaint at p. 3.) The common count is based on, inter alia , that Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff in the last four years (i) on an open book account for money due; and (ii) because an account was stated. (Ibid.) In its instant motion, Plaintiff seeks summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to what it indicates are two causes of action for (1) open book account; and (2) ac...

Excerpt: ...ANTED as follows. Factual and Procedural Background This is an action for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duties against Afifi and Samuel Swenson arising from their joint representation of Sourcis in an underlying action filed by Bravo Development Group, LLC (Bravo Development Group, LLC v. Shahram Elli aka Ron Elli, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34‐2012‐00133552 (the “Bravo Action”)). So...

Excerpt: ...ailed to bring this action to trial within five years. Defendants contend the deadline passed on April 5, 2022. Code of Civil Procedure § 583.310 provides in its entirety: "An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant." California law clearly holds that the five year period actually commences upon the filing of the complaint. "Commencement" of an action for purposes of Code of Civil Pr...

Excerpt: ...dicates defense counsel's office is located at 4815 Laguna Park Dr., Suite B‐3, Elk Grove, California 95758. If Plaintiff provides proof at or prior to the hearing that defense counsel presently occupies Suite C where the moving papers were served, the Court rules as follows. If such proof is not provided, the matter will be dropped due to defective service. California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 provides: “If parties to pending litigati...

Excerpt: ...guaranty and common counts on May 6, 2020. (ROA 1.) As individual adult defendants for whom no guardian or conservator has been appointed, the Vanacores must ordinarily be personally served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.90.) However, where the Vanacores cannot be personally served with reasonable diligence, Plaintiffs may instead serve the Vanacores “by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode,...

Excerpt: ...cle accident which resulted in injuries to numerous individuals including plaintiff Tashawnene Carter. The parties allegedly responsible for the subject accident had relatively small insurance policies and they later tendered the limits of each policy to reach a global settlement. Plaintiff Richmond agreed to settle his injury claims for a total payment of $35,000, although her total medical expenses exceed $200,000. In February 2021 DHCS agreed ...

Excerpt: ...Rule 3.1110(a). The proof of service attached to the moving papers fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1013a, requiring the “exact title” of each document being served. The moving and reply papers fail to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)‐(4). Factual Background This action arises out of plaintiff's employment with defendant GIG beginning in June 2014. The operative Third Amended Complaint purports to allege against several defen...

Excerpt: ...ndant's request for production, set two (ROA 66). Responses to the discovery were to be served by Plaintiff on or before February 25, 2022. Defendant alleges this motion is brought on grounds that Plaintiff has failed and continues to fail to provide proper responses to Defendant's discovery requests despite an order from the Court. A Court may impose terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions, as well as monetary sanctions, for failure to obey...

Excerpt: ...for prosecuting and/or defending the claims alleged. After receiving declarations from counsel for plaintiffs and the Zierold defendants on 5/13/2022 and 5/17/2022, respectively, the Court issued on 5/23/2022 a tentative ruling which addressed a variety of issues raised in the declarations and which directed the parties to resume the meet‐and‐confer process in light of the Court's remarks. The Court has now reviewed the latest declarations fr...